(from The Firearm Blog)
BREAKING: Heckler & Koch Gives Up Selling Firearms to non-NATO Members/Partners
The HK416F variant adopted by the French Army. Note the specialized bayonet lug apparently designed for launching rifle grenades. Image source: sofrep.com
German firearm giant Heckler & Koch has finally given up selling firearms to countries that are not NATO Members or NATO Partners following years of concerted effort by the German government to hamstring the company’s export sales. Reuters reports …
German arms manufacturer Heckler & Koch will no longer sign contracts to supply countries outside of NATO’s influence because it has become too difficult to obtain government approval for such deals, news agency DPA reported on Monday.
The company, one of the world’s best-known gunmakers, will in future only sell to countries that are democratic and free from corruption and that are members of NATO or NATO members’ partners, DPA said, citing company sources.
It said this change in strategy would rule out deals with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Brazil, India or even NATO member Turkey.
In 2014 the German Minister for Economic Affairs announced they the Government was determined to cut arms exports. The following year former employees of the company were arrested for exporting firearms to Mexico. Earlier this year a German court ordered a halt to firearm sales and transfer of technical information to Saudi Arabia.
Countries that neither are NATO Members or Partners include all of South America, Central America, Africa (excluding a few Mediterranean states in North Africa), most of the Central Asia and the Pacific region (including Philippines, India and China). This creates substantial opportunities for Chinese, Russian and Israeli small arms exporters who have been competing with H&K.
What is not clear is if civilian sales are included in this ban. H&K has previously exported consumer firearms to countries such as South Africa.
It is also not clear if the ongoing fine customer service from H&K will continue!/snark 😛
(Courtesy of Kevin Baker)
Via Instapundit today:
It’s important to understand why liberals are so angry and so scared. They are angry because they believe they have a moral right to command us, apparently bestowed by Gaia or #Science or having gone to Yale, and we are irredeemably deplorable for not submitting to their benevolent dictatorship.
They are scared because they fear we will wage the same kind of campaign of petty (and not so petty) oppression, intimidation, and bullying that they intended to wage upon us.
(* As far as I know, the exquisitely accurate expression “Ctrl-Left” was coined by Jonathan Sullivan.)
Mr. President-Elect – Let’s NOT play their game and show them your side can be gracious and benevolent winners. Perhaps, they will learn something?
from Free North Carolina
Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered, after pouring over the logbooks of great polar explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton. Experts were concerned that ice at the South Pole had declined significantly since the 1950s, which they feared was driven by man-made climate change.
But new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early 1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming.
Remember in the 60’s- 70’s, it was going to be the next Ice Age? Followed in the 90’s by erosion of the ozone layer and everyone getting sunburned. Then came Global Warming – until the scientific results didn’t fit – then it renamed Climate Change. (because, the climate doesn’t NOT change).
What do all these ‘scientific proven results’ have in common? They are man made (because men, commerce and industry is inherently evil!)
Funny how many of the same scientists jumped from one catastrophe to another, whenever the outcome was in question.
And leftist politicians are all about punishing those who don’t toe-the-line!
Does President-elect DJT have the gravitas to do what is necessary? Without compromising the Constitution?
AH! There’s the rub.
No extra-constitutional executive orders. No bulls-in-china-shops (in spite of the fact he has no verbal filters!)
Of course, as with GWB, it won’t matter what he does or says to some people, just because he’s (in their view) the wrong person.
Bayou Renaissance Man has a take on the recent (and ongoing) unpleasantness (in part):
I’m astonished that no-one has yet pointed out, publicly and loudly, that the organized anti-Trump protests following his victory in last Tuesday’s election are as organized, and as manipulative, as most of the other protests we’ve seen all year long. It’s the same professional agitators, going from issue to issue and from state to state, seizing on any popular idea and transforming it into a lever to undermine our nation, our democracy and our constitution.Consider:
- The Black Lives Matter protests were very clearly organized. Numerous police forces admitted or asserted that ‘outsiders‘ came into town to make trouble, then moved on to the next protest. They were funded by the same source that bankrolled the Ferguson riots ‘protests’.
- As soon as the North Dakota pipeline protests geared up a few months ago, what happened to the BLM protests? Suddenly there was hardly a mention of them. The reason was simple – the activists turning the pipeline protests into a violent anti-police, anti-The-Man free-for-all were often the same ones that had been behind the BLM nastiness.
- Now that President-elect Trump is the focus, what’s happened to the pipeline protests? All of a sudden we don’t hear Word One about them in the media . . . because those organizing them, and spearheading the violence there, are now organizing the protests and spearheading the violence in the anti-Trump protests.
I’d love to be able to examine arrest records, or attendance records, from police forces all over the country, to see how many names and how many faces cropped up at all of the above protests over the past year. I’m willing to bet money there’ll be a lot of overlap.
One hopes Mr. Trump will find a way to cut the Gordian knot that ties all these anti-constitutional, anti-democratic, anti-American organizations and individuals together. It’s long overdue . . . and entirely necessary, IMHO.
An interesting perspective. Could it be that the same protesters move from protest to protest – almost as if it is their job?
(Remembering the OWS protesters and the similar folks who appear after mass shootings)
Finding a way to ‘cut the Gordian knot’ (as Peter puts it) + my .02…
And, of course, recognizing the other guy remains President for a while longer…
Continue to fight the good fight.
Republicans have The House – the purse strings
Republicans squeaked by in keeping The Senate.
This is important.
Just because Republicans have both the House AND the Senate doesn’t mean statist gun-control types are finished!
Keep checking your six, and keep your powder dry.
Oh, yeah – DONALD JOHN TRUMP IS THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. I wish him well, but have no allusions he’s for stopping all the wars, the TSA, rendition, drone strikes on U.S. citizens, no-knock warrants, NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens, sobriety checkpoints and supports open and CCW everywhere!
Or that he can get his own party’s support to built a wall.
Not that many years ago, he was for gun control and a so-called ‘assault weapons ban’. He claims to have changed his stripes. People can change. Hillary was once a Goldwater Republican. Charlton Heston (in the distant past) supported gun control.
AND DJT remains a big government statist populist. (Although, he likes McDonald’s and drove his own car during the campaign, sometimes). Hillary hasn’t driven her own car in 35 years? Remember Bush marveling at supermarket scanners? Out-of-touch, much?
Regardless of party labeling, we should continue to watch ALL the Republicans (and of course the Democrats/Progressives/Socialists).
AND, the White House.
It’s not specific parties that are evil.
(Originally, I was going to say The National Enquirer, but that periodical appears to have achieved more gravitas of late than The New York Times and Time magazine, combined!) 🙂
Let’s see. In the past week…
- Hillary WILL DEFINITELY be indicted
- Hillary WILL DEFINITELY NOT be indicted
- Global Warming is real (as determined by bribed/blackmailed scientists)
- Oklahoma Fracking is causing the increased earthquake activity there (as determined by the same ‘team’ of scientists)
- Assange states Wikileaks will release astounding information damning to Hillary in the next couple of days. – from Saturday last (We’re still waiting, Julian!)
- GMO foods are killing us.
- Vaccinating is bad
- Vaccinating is good.
- More BEE species are facing extinction (due to Monsanto pesticide and GMO development)
- Big corporations (like Monsanto) are bad. Just because they are big, and make money.
- Hillary will win (because the fix is in, ballot box stuffing, voter fraud, Soros, Illuminati, etc.)
- Hillary will win (based on some Quija board predictions in the past – see Groundhog Day)
- Trump will win (see above Hillary win stuff for reasons)
One thing I have noticed. Many of the same scientists are aligned with the same forces who believe in global warming, are anti-GMO and ANTI-vaxxer types, and have the ‘humans are bad for the Earth’ (and obtaining oil is bad, and think we need a global government to solve everything) way of thinking.
IF YOU HAVE NOT VOTED, PLEASE DO SO. IF NOT, YOU WILL HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN.
Thank GOD today is Election Day, and it will all be over soon!
One way or another…
God save The United States of America, from herself!
In Greek mythology Sisyphus (;Greek: Σίσυφος, Sísuphos) was the king of Ephyra (now known as Corinth). He was punished for his self-aggrandizing craftiness and deceitfulness by being forced to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it come back to hit him, repeating this action for eternity. Through the classical influence on modern culture, tasks that are both laborious and futile are therefore described as Sisyphean (). (Wikipedia)
I’m on Facebook less (under my real name) since I’ve been producing a daily blog. Not to mention, the idiocy encountered on FB (especially in the realm of politics) is astounding.
STILL, I do sometimes visit there, and less often participate in political commentary. Because, sadly, there are some folks schooled in courtesy and debate, but many are not.
One of my FB friends is a guy I’ve known since grade school. We also went to the same junior high and graduated in the same class in high school. And attended the same Sunday school.
He claims to be an NRA member and a hunter, but sometimes repeats the time-worn arguments used by the anti-gun-rights community about controls over semiautomatic firearms and magazine capacity.
Not understanding the whole nose-under-the-tent thing, or, for that matter, The Second Amendment.
Regardless, he has a right to his opinion, and to post the same on Facebook.
I mostly just read others postings, occasionally adding my two cents worth. Or just clicking ‘like’.
Unless I am directly attacked!
So this guy mentioned me by name and strongly suggested I knew nothing about the issue, law or history, and should understand HIS interpretation of The Second Amendment! (the whole militia meme).
I took a deep breath (to slow my roll) and responded politely that he read The Federalist Papers and Madison and Tench Coxe to obtain a better perspective! I also recommended reading about how the first efforts on gun control were to stop freed slaves from firearms ownership (in 1809) and continued to the Sullivan Law in NYC (1911) to prevent undesirables (read immigrants) from having guns.
Then, I took another breath.
No response was posted.
BUT, in about a week, I saw another friend’s pro-gun Facebook posting generating a response from this same guy. THE SAME RESPONSE, ALMOST VERBATIM!
Obviously, he had not taken my suggestion to do further research.
I will continue to ‘like’ his comments regarding his new retirement home in Prescott, or his new prosthesis (he is an amputee), but I won’t bother responding any more to his screeds on restricting all our rights.
‘Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.’ – George Carlin
The Silicon Graybeard (not a wild-eyed conspiracy guy!) brings us (in part)
Translates as “Let justice be done, though the world perish”. Apparently it’s not really a phrase from the Roman Empire but from a book in 1563. Wikipedia says:
This sentence was the motto of Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor, probably originating from Johannes Jacobus Manlius’s book Loci Communes (1563). It characterizes an attitude, which wants to provide justice at any price. Its first documented use in English literature was about half a century later.
Hat Tip to The Arts Mechanical for this information, in a piece called Nightmare Fuel, and it really is reading that’s not for the squeamish. He, in turn, links to a number of sources that are reporting on the truly disgusting things going on in Clinton Foundation’s universe. First a link to True Pundit:
BREAKING BOMBSHELL: NYPD Blows Whistle on New Hillary Emails: Money Laundering, Sex Crimes with Children, Child Exploitation, Pay to Play, Perjury
It’s. Not. Just. Bill. It’s all of them. From Reddit’s The_Donald forum :
BREAKING: I believe I have connected a convicted child abductor who was caught stealing children in Haiti with the Clintons
But wait! There’s more! (Sickeningly)
I truly believe the Clintons and their entourage to be evil. Morally bankrupt.
Even if none of the above allegations (many courtesy of Wikileaks) are based in fact.
Humans want to believe the worst about persons whom they already despise. It makes it easier to put them in the why would I want to elect THEM column.
Not forgetting about Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, Hillary’s gun control plans, the illegal sale of plutonium to Russia, arming ISIS, the countless mysterious deaths and intimidations, Bill’s serial rapes…
(I could go on – but I have to go take some Pepto now.)
This does NOT mean I am actively supporting the Republican candidate!
He may be a pig and has used inappropriate language, and at best is a populist (see Huey Long
Libertarians? Two governors with scant international experience? One of who is a rebranded, gun-controlling Democrat?! And the Presidential candidate supports global-warming taxes?!
(I’m not even mentioning the Greens or the Commies… I know, I’m being redundant)
So VOTE. Vote not with your heart, but with your brain.
THE REPUBLIC’S SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.
Peter (Bayou Renaissance Man)
posited thusly (in part)…
Donna Laframboise asks, “How many scientific papers just aren’t true? Enough that basing government policy on ‘peer-reviewed studies’ isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.”
We’re continually assured that government policies are grounded in evidence, whether it’s an anti-bullying programme in Finland, an alcohol awareness initiative in Texas or climate change responses around the globe. Science itself, we’re told, is guiding our footsteps.
There’s just one problem: science is in deep trouble. Last year, Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, referred to fears that ‘much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue’ and that ‘science has taken a turn toward darkness.’
It’s a worrying thought. Government policies can’t be considered evidence-based if the evidence on which they depend hasn’t been independently verified, yet the vast majority of academic research is never put to this test. Instead, something called peer review takes place. When a research paper is submitted, journals invite a couple of people to evaluate it. Known as referees, these individuals recommend that the paper be published, modified, or rejected.
If it’s true that one gets what one pays for, let me point out that referees typically work for no payment. They lack both the time and the resources to perform anything other than a cursory overview. Nothing like an audit occurs. No one examines the raw data for accuracy or the computer code for errors. Peer review doesn’t guarantee that proper statistical analyses were employed, or that lab equipment was used properly. The peer review process itself is full of serious flaws, yet is treated as if it’s the handmaiden of objective truth.
And it shows. Referees at the most prestigious of journals have given the green light to research that was later found to be wholly fraudulent. Conversely, they’ve scoffed at work that went on to win Nobel prizes. Richard Smith, a former editor of the British Medical Journal, describes peer review as a roulette wheel, a lottery and a black box. He points out that an extensive body of research finds scant evidence that this vetting process accomplishes much at all. On the other hand, a mountain of scholarship has identified profound deficiencies.
. . .
Politicians and journalists have long found it convenient to regard peer-reviewed research as de facto sound science. Saying ‘Look at the studies!’ is a convenient way of avoiding argument … We’ve long been assured that reports produced by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are authoritative because they rely entirely on peer-reviewed scientific literature. A 2010 InterAcademy Council investigation found this claim to be false, but that’s another story. Even if all IPCC source material did meet this threshold, the fact that one academic journal — and there are 25,000 of them — conducted an unspecified and unregulated peer review ritual is no warranty that a paper isn’t total nonsense.
If half of scientific literature ‘may simply be untrue’, then might it be that some of the climate research cited by the IPCC is also untrue? Even raising this question is often seen as being anti-scientific. But science is never settled. The history of scientific progress is the history of one set of assumptions being disproven, and another taking its place.
There’s more at the link. Ms. Laframboise’s full report may be read here (the link is to an Adobe Acrobat document in .PDF format).
This is precisely why I profoundly distrust any politician who tries to tell us that ‘the science is settled’. All too often, it’s far from settled. It may even be actively and deliberately fraudulent, producing results tailor-made to satisfy the objectives of those who’ve funded the research. Too many ‘researchers’ begin with a goal in mind, their conclusions already identified, and then seek evidence that will substantiate what they want to prove. Anything to the contrary is ignored or discarded, or flagrantly manipulated to achieve the desired result (as in this example, to cite just one – there are many more).
That’s not research at all. It’s pseudo-scientific sleight of hand. It’s a shell game.
I used to believe in SCIENCE. After all, having been taught The Scientific Method, along with the histories of Newton, Curie, Tesla, Edison, Einstein and others, I believed hard work, documentation, reproducing results and guts did it.
The idea that scientists were bending or fabricating their results toward a financial end didn’t even cross my mind. (think Galileo!)
I used to believe in GOVERNMENT. The blueprint the Founding Fathers left us was damn near perfect. Persons who sought government service would swear to uphold the principles espoused in The Constitution.
But, there was an assumption those who chose public service would be MORAL and ETHICAL!
The fact such persons would commit perjury by swearing falsely never even crossed my radar.
The scales have indeed dropped from my eyes.
And scientists and politicians will have to reach a high bar to gain my trust ever again.
Now, I’m relegated to a bunker (in an unknown location) and tin-foil hat (at least philosophically).
If you don’t know the access password, watch out!
Regular readers know I am not openly supporting any Presidential candidate (except, of course, Joe Maddon – the Chicago Cubs manager, on my sidebar!🙂 – bumper stickers for charity! )
So, I’ve been observing the machinations and mewlings of the candidates as a distracted observer. With an airline barf bag at-the-ready!
An interesting side note on this (and most recent) elections, is the degree of partisanship that continues to appear. For example: YOUR candidate said “X” so many years ago (a crude statement), therefore they do not deserve to be President! Completely ignoring the high crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated by their own candidate! A crime being stronger than an inappropriate statement.
Now we have a recent debate (which, again, I refused to watch) wherein Mr. Trump made a number of provocative statements, including if he were President, Secretary Clinton would be in jail!
One would have to be wearing blinders and earplugs to not understand the meaning behind such a statement had to do with her alleged actions involving thousands of confidential government emails and perhaps non-actions involving the deaths @ Benghazi. (The sale of uranium to Russia and the misdeeds of The Clinton Foundation notwithstanding!)
But depending on your party affiliation, you might choose to make Mr. Trump dictatorial and conclude his statement was a blanket declaration to imprison all those who differ with his policies.
And ignore the crimes of your own candidate.
Of course, as oft repeated by Bill O’Reilly*, holding up another’s bad acts do not serve to justify one’s own!
“THEY did it!, so I get to!”
*I used to enjoy watching Mr. O’Reilly, until he began parsing the Second Amendment and stating ‘assault weapons’ (whatever THEY are) should be banned. Then, I stopped watching him. I view him as a populist, saying what ‘the people’ want to hear (not unlike Mr. Trump. Huey Long?). Except, O’Reilly has slightly better filter than Mr. Trump!)